Sakthi Sugars Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 866/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4166 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 32; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . #$ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS. 866/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. SAKTHI SUGARS LIMITED, 180, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE PAN: AADCS0651B ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ./ I.T.A.NOS. 1107/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE VS M/S. SAKTHI SUGARS LIMITED, 180, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 018. PAN: AADCS0651B ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY : SMT. JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, CIT SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT !' /DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2017 #$!' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.06.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE & REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, COIMBATORE DATED 14.01.2 016 IN 2 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 APPEAL NO.276/13-14 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE LD.DCIT HAS FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT BE FORE US STATING THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO THE MISPLACEMENT OF FILE AND DUE TO THE TIME TAKEN FOR TRACING THE FILE. THE LD .DR PLEADED THAT THE SHORT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONE D. THE LD.AR OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.DR. AFTER HEA RING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SHORT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 3 DAYS I N FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE CASE ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT :- (I) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, WHO HAS DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE BEING THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS.19.20 CRORES TO THE ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BA NK LIMITED UNDER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME AS THE BOR ROWERS 3 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 OF THE LOAN HAD DEFAULTED THE REPAYMENT, WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD STOOD AS GUARANTOR. (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO, WHO HAD DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.53,499/- BEING EXPENDITURE RELATED TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME INVOKI NG THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE RULES. 4. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS AP PEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT :- (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE LD.AO WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION, ON THE BEVERAGE DIVISION AMOUNTING TO RS.60,62,124/-. (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LD.AO TO ASSESS THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER TH E HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURE OF SUGAR, INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL, GENERATION OF POWER AND SOYA PRODUCTS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 29.09.2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS. 4 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 THEREAFTER THE RETURN WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UND ER CASS AND FINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2013, WHEREIN THE LD.AO HAD MADE SEVERAL ADDI TIONS. 6. ASSESSEES APPEAL, GROUND NO. 3(I) : DISALLOWANCE O F THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.19.20 CRORES :- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT W AS NOTICED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS.19,20,16,000/- AS EXPENDITURE IN PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON QUERY, IT WAS EXPLAINE D BY THE LD.AR BEFORE THE LD.AO AS FOLLOWS:- 'THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING A DEQUATE IRRIGATION FACILITIES TO ITS CANE AREAS HAS CREATED WATER USERS SOCIETIES, VIZ., SAKTHI RURAL DEVELOPMENT WATER USE RS SOCIETY,CUTTACK AND SAMTHI SUGARS CANE GROWERS RURA L DEVELOPMENT WATER USERS SOCIETY, DHANAKANAL. THOSE SOCIETIES HAVE CREATED IRRIGATION FACILITIES, VIZ., LIFTINF OF WATER FROM MAHANATHI RIVER AND PUMPING THE WATER IN TO SUGAR CANE FIELDS BY SETTING UP OF INFRASTRUCTURES FOR TH E PURPOSE. TO CONSTRUCT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES SUCH AS SET TING UP OF MOTOR PUMPS AT THE RIVER POINTS, SOURCING THE WATER, LAYI NG OF PIPIE LINE FOR DISTRIBUTING THE WATER TO CANE FIELDS ETC. , THE SOCIETIES HAVE BORROWED MONIES FROM BANKS. THE ABOVE LOANS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED WITH THE ARRANGE MENT THAT THE LOAN WOULD BE REPAID WITH INTEREST OUT OF THE A MOUNTS COLLECTED FROM WATER USERS. THE AMOUNT WILL BE COLL ECTED FROM WATER USERS OUT OF THEIR SUGAR CANE SUPPLY PROCEEDS PAYABLE BY 5 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 SAKTHI SUGARS LIMITED. SAKTHI SUGARS LIMITED STOOD AS GUARANTOR FOR THE LOANS BORROWED BY THE SOCIETIES. DUE TO INADEQUACY OF COLLECTION AND OTHER FACTOS, T HE SOCIETIES COULD NOT REPAY THE LOANS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, S AKTHI SUGARS LIMITED AS THE GUARANTOR TO THE LOAN HAS REPAID THE LOAN UNDER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT TO ORISSA STATE3 CO-OPERATIVE B ANK LTD. THE SAME AMOUNT WAS SETTLED BY M/S SAKTHI SUGARS LI MITED UNDER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME (OTS) FOR RS. 19,2 0,16,000/- AND CLAIMED AS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION U/ S 37 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT. WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS, WHEREIN THE ITAT/HIGH COURT HAVE HELD THAT DISCHARG E OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE IS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ALLOW ABLE U/ S 37. 1. CIT VS RUDRA INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION 2 0 TAXMANN.COM 2. ACIT VS. W.S.LNDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED 128 ITD 98 (CHENNAI)' 6.1 AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, THE LD.AO REJECTED T HE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.19.2 CRORES BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOW ING REASONS:- 1) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BANK GUARANTEE AND IT WAS ONLY IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING SUGAR, INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL, GENERATION OF POWER AND MANUFACTURING SOYA PRODUCTS. 2) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE FA RMERS ARE ONLY FOR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS. 6 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 3) THE SOCIETIES FOR WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN BA NK GUARANTEE ARE INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE FARMERS. 4) PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES TO THE FARME RS IS A BENEFIT PROVIDED TO THE FARMERS AND NOT LINKED TO THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5) THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM, THE AMOUNT PA ID BY IT TO THE BANK IN LIEU OF THE BANK GUARANTEE, FROM THE SO CIETIES. 6) THERE IS NO BUSINESS LINK BETWEEN THE SOCIETIES AND THE ASSESSEE. 7) THE MISMANAGEMENT OF FUNDS WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE LOSS TO THE SOCIETY CANNOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8) THE SOCIETY IS FORMED FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF ITS SUBSCRIBERS AND FOR THEIR COMMON PURPOSES AND NOT F OR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) AGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF LD.AO THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION IN THE LEGAL S ENSE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY E XCEPT IN SIMILARITY OF NAME, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.A O. THE 7 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 LD.CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE LOAN AMOUNT O F RS.19.2 CRORES WAS OBTAINED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AGA INST THE GUARANTEE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TO BE DEPLOYED FOR CREATING CAPITAL ASSETS, THE SAME CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT FALLS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. 6.3 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS M ADE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE MAIN ARGUM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED GUARANT EE TO THE SOCIETIES IN ORDER TO HELP THE FARMERS IN THE NEAR VICINITY TO INCREASE THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BECAUSE IT IS F ROM THEM THE ASSESSEE IS DEPENDENT FOR PROCURING RAW MATERIALS. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN INTENTION FOR PRO VIDING SUCH BANK GUARANTEE WAS TO IMPROVE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS A DIRECT BUSINESS NEXUS ON THE TRANSACTION. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.37 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES AND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. 8 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 6.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO AND THE LD.CIT(A), THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT CLE AR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US ANY DOCUME NTS SUCH AS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SOCIE TIES, THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE SOCIETY IN ITS GENERAL MEE TING, THE NATURE OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE SOCIETY, THE REASONS FOR TH E LOSS INCURRED BY THE SOCIETY, THE REASONS FOR THE SOCIETY NOT TO REPAY THE LOAN, ETC.. THUS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS N OT BEEN BROUGHT OUT VIVIDLY BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND I T IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE REFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 7. ASSESSEES APPEAL, GROUND NO. 3(II) : DISALLOWAN CE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE RULES OF RS.53,499/- :- FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE L D. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 4A R.W.R 8D OF THE RULES, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO SUCH INVESTMENT WAS NOT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND 9 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/M DS/2016 ANY INFIRMITY ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHO RITIES ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONLY FOLLOWED THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD.AO ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 8. REVENUES APPEAL, GROUND NO. 4 (I) : DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECI ATION OF RS.60,62,124/- :- IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.60,62,124/- WITH RESPECT TO ITS BEVERAGE PLANT AT SIVAGANGA. THE LD.AO FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THOSE MACHINERIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.60,62,124/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDE D BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.614/MDS/2012 AND 867/MDS/2012 DATED 30.01 .2015, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FAVOUR. 10 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/ MDS/2016 8.2 SINCE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ONLY FOLLOWED THE ORDE R OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DECIDED AGAINST IT. 9. REVENUES APPEAL, GROUND NO. 4(II) : ASSESSMENT OF RENTAL INCOME OF RS.46.76 LAKH UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS IN COME:- IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D A RENTAL INCOME OF RS.73,80,239/- WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE RENTAL INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE LD.AO COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. 9.1 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME ISSUE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR HEL D THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.2 ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ARRIVED AT SUCH DECISION DUE TO THE BO ARD CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHICH STATES AS FOLLOWS:- 11 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/ MDS/2016 DEPRECIATION DEVELOPMENT REBATE SECTION 32' SECTION 33 ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE BOARD'S LETTER NO. F. 1 0/97/63-IT(AI), DT. THE 29TH FEB., 1964, ADDRESSED TO THE CIT, IN W HICH INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED, INTER ALIA, THAT DEVELOPM ENT REBATE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON AIR-CONDITIONERS AND FANS GIVEN BY AN EMPLOYER FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF THE EMPLOYEES OR D IRECTORS AT THEIR RESIDENCE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE NOT WHOLLY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSE E'S BUSINESS. 2. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RE-EXAMINED BY THE BOARD R ECENTLY IN THE LIGHT OF BOARD'S LETTER F. NO. 9/26/IT/60, DT. THE 21ST MARCH, 1960 IN WHICH IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT QUARTERS BUILT BY THE EMPLOYERS FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES MUST BE REGARDED AS BUILDINGS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE B USINESS AND DEPRECIATION ALLOWED THEREON, WHERE THE OCCUPATION BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE EMPLOYER IS S UBSERVIENT TO AND NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR DUTIES. I T IS CONSIDERED THAT WHAT APPLIES TO BUILDINGS APPLIES ALSO TO THE FANS, AIR- CONDITIONERS AND REFRIGERATORS FITTED TO THOSE BUIL DINGS, AS THOSE ARE AMENITIES WHICH VIRTUALLY FORM PART OF SUCH BUI LDINGS. 3. ON RECONSIDERATION THEREFORE THE BOARD HAVE DECI DED, IN SUPERSESSION OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THEIR LE TTER DT. THE 29TH FEB., 1964, THAT FANS, AIR-CONDITIONERS, REFRIGERAT ORS ETC. PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE EM PLOYEES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN USED WHOLLY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS AND FULL DEPRECIATION AS MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES, SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EMPLOYER. WHERE SUCH ASSETS H AVE BEEN INSTALLED ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST MARCH, 1965, DEVELO PMENT REBATE MAY ALSO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THESE ASSETS, IF THE REBATE IS OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE. 12 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/ MDS/2016 FURTHER ON PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME NOT ONLY FROM I TS EMPLOYEES BUT ALSO FROM OTHER PRIVATE PARTIES. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: THUS WE FIND THAT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE RENTAL I NCOME OF RS.46,76,622/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENTAL IN COME FROM ITS EMPLOYEES FOR PROVIDING QUARTERS. ALL OTHER RENTAL INCOME IS WITH RESPECT TO THIRD PARTIES AND THE CIRCULAR HAS NO BE ARING ON THEM. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RE CEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES FOR PROVIDING QUARTERS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.46,76,622/- SHALL BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. RENT FOR AMOUNT (RS.) EMPLOYEES QUARTERS 46,76,622 BANK BUILDING, POST OFFICE BUILDING, CO-OP. STORES BUILDING, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE AND RENT FROM PREMISES SITUATED IN THE SUGAR MILL COMPOUND 11,73,617 FLAT PARK AVENUE 2,70,000 INDUSTRIAL SHED 3,00,000 CORPORATE OFFICE BUILDING 9,60,000 TOTAL 73,80,239 13 ITA NO. 866 & 1107/ MDS/2016 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 23 RD JUNE, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . #$ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) % & /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '% /CHENNAI, (& /DATED 23 RD JUNE, 2017 JR & *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. /ASSESSEE 2. /REVENUE 3. / ( )/CIT(A) 4. / /CIT 5. +01 2 /DR 6. 13 /GF